Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice guy syndrome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. The consensus appears to be slightly in favour of keep, but even then, the arguments were borderline enough for me to close this as a no consensus rather than a keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice guy syndrome

This was nominated two years ago (see Talk:Nice guy syndrome), and two years later, the concerns expressed by the original nomination have not been addressed. It's essentially original research and speculation and very heavy generalization and exactly what WP:OR was written to prevent, namely patent crankery. There are a lot of men who don't get what they want out of relationships, but I doubt they're all in the same boat due to some fictitious "syndrome." There's already a slightly better article at Love shyness, but I don't recommend a merge as much of the information is duplicated. Acceptance of this term in mainstream psychiatry would make me think otherwise, but right now, I say delete. There's possibly a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. Brian G. Crawford 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to love shyness. I could see this article sticking around IF it stops trying to treat the subject as science (which is hopelessly original research/crankery) and sticks to describing the "nice guy" as a character archetype in pop culture. That seems to be the consensus of the original nomination. But then the article would have to be almost completely rewritten, and moved, since the title wouldn't be appropriate anymore. I'll start work on writing a new article to place at nice guy (which currently redirects to this article). There are enough sources here to verify the "nice guy" as a cultural concept/archetype, just not "nice guy syndrome" as anything more than a bit of folk psychology that doesn't deserve the pseudoscientific treatment it has here. — AKADriver ☎ 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • An article on the character archtype sounds like a great idea. Brian G. Crawford 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. We should make a nice guy article discussing the character archetype in pop culture. (See for instance the first episode of Sex in the City.) Nice guy syndrome should then redirect to nice guy. The nice guy article can briefly mention claims of a "nice guy syndrome" in Glover's book. If a nice guy article gets going soon, then I will vote to delete this one. Oh, and an interesting study on the subject which might help is: Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G. & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427-440. Though it is inconclusive as to answering the question. --SecondSight 00:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Perhaps the added exposure from this AfD will do a worthwhile term good. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, as well as pseudoscience masquerading as a legitimate concept (the low quality of the sources cited should be enough of a clue there.) Having an article on this implies that "nice guy syndrome" is an objectively recognizable concept like "cancer" or "schizophrenia". It's not. The idea that such a "syndrome" exists is a hypothesis floated in a few popular books, and we shouldn't legitimize it; at best, it could be mentioned in an article on folk psychological theories or on the sociology of heterosexual relationships in the US. Catamorphism 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This is not original research (although this version of the article may be). Should be cleaned up and modified so that it does not break the criterias for being an article. Beltz 22:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This may be original research, and everything in this article is listed in other articles like Love-shyness, Social Anxiety Disorder, and so on. --Quintin3265 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Although similar, there seem to be slight nuances that make Nice guy syndrome different from Love-shyness. Its a notable pop-psyc term. -- backburner001 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that there appear to be articles on this topic in four foreign-language wikipedias as well. Шизомби 04:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and redirect to love-shyness. If kept, this must absolutely be renamed so that the article title isn't misleading and factually incorrect; moving the article to nice guy would be a good start. -Sean Curtin 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's naff pseudoscience articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name. Vizjim 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's original research and basically pointless --Ruaraidh-dobson 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yes, it is pop-psych, but it is also pop-culture. I would argue that everyone can either relate to the phenomenon, or knows someone who can. Dogosaurus 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per NOR. But if kept, I do agree that this article should be renamed and rewritten. "Nice guy sindrom" is in no way a medical condition. xompanthy 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Currently, nice guy is a popular term for a broad range of symptoms and it is likely to be a term entered in as a search parameter when looking for information about this type of problem. If that search turns up this article, then the searcher can find their way from there to something more relevant.
• Keep but rewrite Most of the information in the article at some level valid but could be truncated to be more useful.Electricbassguy 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep As a 'nice guy' who's been wondering what's wrong with me for a while, I found this article to be quite thought provoking. It isn't touted as gospel, so I don't see the reason to nix it. --Ninjadroid 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.